Upgrading modelling lights (a question) and musings on the infamous Elinchrom power output scale

[learningtofly]

The question: I have three Elinchrom heads, each of which are fitted with the correct OEM 100w/196v modelling light; however, I’d really like to use something more powerful (at least 150w but possibly even more). Given that the lights themselves are 90-260v what are the constraints in terms of modelling light output? For example, I have a couple of 275w/230v bulbs from my old Bowen’s heads - could I use them if I wanted to?

The musings: I couldn’t work out why Elinchrom uses such a quirky power output scale on its lights; for example, my 500Ws heads are adjustable within a 5-stop range in 1/10th increments, but the digital readout is from 2.3 to 6.3 which, to be honest, is a bit irritating. Anyway, it turns out that this approach to output scales provides all Elinchrom lights with a kind of “equivalence”. For example, a lower power head might display an output of 1.8 to 5.8 or a higher power head with broader range of adjustment (say) 2.1 to 6,5; however, if all of these lights show the same number on their displays then, no matter what their power, they’ll provide exactly the same output of light, This has been tested many times, and it’s completely accurate... it’s ingenious, actually.

 

[learningtofly]

Paging @Garry Edwards - please come to the Lighting & Studio forum!

 

[HoppyUK]

The question: I have three Elinchrom heads, each of which are fitted with the correct OEM 100w/196v modelling light; however, I’d really like to use something more powerful (at least 150w but possibly even more). Given that the lights themselves are 90-260v what are the constraints in terms of modelling light output? For example, I have a couple of 275w/230v bulbs from my old Bowen’s heads - could I use them if I wanted to?

The musings: I couldn’t work out why Elinchrom uses such a quirky power output scale on its lights; for example, my 500Ws heads are adjustable within a 5-stop range in 1/10th increments, but the digital readout is from 2.3 to 6.3 which, to be honest, is a bit irritating. Anyway, it turns out that this approach to output scales provides all Elinchrom lights with a kind of “equivalence”. For example, a lower power head might display an output of 1.8 to 5.8 or a higher power head with broader range of adjustment (say) 2.1 to 6,5; however, if all of these lights show the same number on their displays then, no matter what their power, they’ll provide exactly the same output of light, This has been tested many times, and it’s completely accurate... it’s ingenious, actually.

You don't say which head you have, but if that's the common mushroom-shaped Elinchrom bulb (D-Lites etc) then it's a nominal 100w but overrun to 150w (see handbook). In my tests, I'd say it was at least that, maybe 180w-ish equivalent so you wouldn't be gaining as much as might appear. They compare well to other modelling lamps for brightness. The problem with changing the modelling bulb is a) will it fit? and b) heat. The cooling fan may struggle with much more heat, but that depends on various other factors most notably the light modifier. If that's enclosed like a softbox, especially when pointing down, there will be no ventilation and a lot of heat-soak but really the worst that can happen is the overheat protection will kick in and shut everything down.

LED bulbs are a blessing in that respect, but they're not an easy swap. Many won't physically fit, too fat to clear the flash tube, and they can upset the electronics so be careful - maybe ask Elinchrom. I have used LED bulbs in D-Lites to reduce heat but lost brightness with the only ones I could find in B&Q that would fit. And they flicker at anything less than full power - not sure the D-Lite internals were too happy with them, and they block some light output from the flash.

Elinchrom is not the only manufacturer to use that 'equivalent' power settings scale across different heads. It's handy Also notable is Elinchrom modelling lights that stay properly 'in-pro' to flash output. Most manufacturers claim that, but many are miles out.

 

[learningtofly]

You don't say which head you have, but if that's the common mushroom-shaped Elinchrom bulb (D-Lites etc) then it's a nominal 100w but overrun to 150w (see handbook). In my tests, I'd say it was at least that, maybe 180w-ish equivalent so you wouldn't be gaining as much as might appear. They compare well to other modelling lamps for brightness. The problem with changing the modelling bulb is a) will it fit? and b) heat. The cooling fan may struggle with much more heat, but that depends on various other factors most notably the light modifier. If that's enclosed like a softbox, especially when pointing down, there will be no ventilation and a lot of heat-soak but really the worst that can happen is the overheat protection will kick in and shut everything down.

Elinchrom is not the only manufacturer to use that 'equivalent' power settings scale across different heads. It's handy

Thanks very much, Richard. I have a couple of BX500Ri heads plus a D-Lite RX4 and yes - they both use the Super Leuci mushroom shaped lamp. I actually just read about the point regarding overrunning at 150w so I guess that's not so bad (at least at the higher end of the power range). Point about heat generation noted, and I guess that's the key issue, then.

 

[HoppyUK]

Thanks for the speedy 'like' @learningtofly but I've added a couple of edits you might have missed. Also, I was fiddling with LED modelling bulbs a couple of years ago and it's a rapidly moving market so there may be some other options out there now. Ask on here and check recent posts in other lighting forums - it's quite a popular question. FWIW though, my hunch is that more modelling light brightness may be elusive.

 

[learningtofly]

Thanks for the speedy 'like' @learningtofly but I've added a couple of edits you might have missed. Also, I was fiddling with LED modelling bulbs a couple of years ago and it's a rapidly moving market so there may be some other options out there now. Ask on here and check recent posts in other lighting forums - it's quite a popular question. FWIW though, my hunch is that more modelling light brightness may be elusive.

Haha... nothing wrong with showing a bit of gratitude

Good point regarding LED alternatives and I have started to look for info on it. I actually have some LED heads (Godox and Nanlite) which are dimmable without any nasty side-effects so the technology is definitely out there; perhaps just not in the form of retrofit/replacements for tungsten, though.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Paging @Garry Edwards - please come to the Lighting & Studio forum!

Why? My opinion isn't likely to be any better than anyone else's.
But as you insist . . .

I always view Elinchrom in much the same way as I view Mercedes - a long anf credible record of innovation, and with such good marketing that others copy both their innovations and marketing blurb.

From memory, Elinchrom were the first to come out with user-changeable flash tubes, and everyone else had to copy this idea, even though most people never need to change a flash tube.
And then there was the proportional modelling lamp, another brilliant marketing innovation that has pretty much zero value.
And of course there's also this "equivalent power setting" which again has zero practical value that I can see, but which may have helped them to increase their sales, which of course is its true value.

It's what it is, they make good products that have a good lifespan, and it isn't worth getting hung up about unimportant details. As for their over-run modelling lamps, with a fairly short lifespan, personally I wouldn't change them because there's no need to do so. In the real world, you only actually need a modelling lamp on one head, for the key light, and so if the one on the second light blows then I wouldn't even bother to replace it. From memory, Alien Bees did this too, the difference is that Elinchrom make good products . . .

 

[learningtofly]

Why? My opinion isn't likely to be any better than anyone else's.
But as you insist . . .

I always view Elinchrom in much the same way as I view Mercedes - a long anf credible record of innovation, and with such good marketing that others copy both their innovations and marketing blurb.

From memory, Elinchrom were the first to come out with user-changeable flash tubes, and everyone else had to copy this idea, even though most people never need to change a flash tube.
And then there was the proportional modelling lamp, another brilliant marketing innovation that has pretty much zero value.
And of course there's also this "equivalent power setting" which again has zero practical value that I can see, but which may have helped them to increase their sales, which of course is its true value.

It's what it is, they make good products that have a good lifespan, and it isn't worth getting hung up about unimportant details. As for their over-run modelling lamps, with a fairly short lifespan, personally I wouldn't change them because there's no need to do so. In the real world, you only actually need a modelling lamp on one head, for the key light, and so if the one on the second light blows then I wouldn't even bother to replace it. From memory, Alien Bees did this too, the difference is that Elinchrom make good products . . .

Why? Well, because I thought you might have some technical knowledge with regard to the interchangeability of modelling light lamps. No matter though, and thanks for your response.

Incidentally, I'm sure there are many situations where one might be using various models of Elinchrom heads but want to easily/immediately understand the relationship between the output from each, so we'll agree to differ on your "zero value" point.

Are you being particularly bellicose today or is it just my imagination?

 

[Garry Edwards]

Why? Well, because I thought you might have some technical knowledge with regard to the interchangeability of modelling light lamps. No matter though, and thanks for your response.

Incidentally, I'm sure there are many situations where one might be using various models of Elinchrom heads but want to easily/immediately understand the relationship between the output from each, so we'll agree to differ on your "zero value" point.

Are you being particularly bellicose today or is it just my imagination?

Tony, you should have guessed by now that I'm always grumpy, although I'm not sure that I'm bellicose, I'm a miserable old man who is fed up with lockdown . . . But at least I'm getting my first COVID-19 jab tomorrow, and am looking forward to some future improvements

As for my "Zero Value" opinion, yours is of equal value to mine but I feel that there is no practical value because
1. The equivalence can only exist when each light is being used in exactly identical conditions, i.e. at the same distance from the subject, with the same modifier.
2. This "benefit" can only be of any value and when exactly identical lighting power is wanted, and this will never happen in real life (except perhaps for ebay-quality product photographers and a few other totally unskilled people).
3. Even if anyone wanted to "achieve" this awful quality of lighting, back in the day, that was what flash meters were for, because they fully compensated for different light-to-subject distances, different modifiers, the Inverse Square Law and trigonometric ratio calculations.
4. And today, nearly everyone shoots on digital and so can just look at that clever little monitor on the back of the camera instead.

But, if I've missed some real benefit, please don't hesitate to point it out

 

[learningtofly]

Tony, you should have guessed by now that I'm always grumpy, although I'm not sure that I'm bellicose, I'm a miserable old man who is fed up with lockdown . . . But at least I'm getting my first COVID-19 jab tomorrow, and am looking forward to some future improvements

As for my "Zero Value" opinion, yours is of equal value to mine but I feel that there is no practical value because
1. The equivalence can only exist when each light is being used in exactly identical conditions, i.e. at the same distance from the subject, with the same modifier.
2. This "benefit" can only be of any value and when exactly identical lighting power is wanted, and this will never happen in real life (except perhaps for ebay-quality product photographers and a few other totally unskilled people).
3. Even if anyone wanted to "achieve" this awful quality of lighting, back in the day, that was what flash meters were for, because they fully compensated for different light-to-subject distances, different modifiers, the Inverse Square Law and trigonometric ratio calculations.
4. And today, nearly everyone shoots on digital and so can just look at that clever little monitor on the back of the camera instead.

But, if I've missed some real benefit, please don't hesitate to point it out

Haha... thanks for elaborating, Garry. I take your points although I still think it's bloody clever. Furthermore, I do see a scenario where I could be using two lights and want to quickly and easily reduce relative output of one of them by (say) 2 stops. I now know that whatever models/power of lights I'm using, if one reads 6.3 on the display and the other reads 4.3, then I have what I need. Anyway, we all know what they say about opinions, so I offer mine on that basis

I'm also no spring chicken, and am totally p***ed off with lockdown (which is presently preventing me from building a set of "stock" headshots, so particularly irritating). Glad to hear you're getting your jab, though. My wife (who's a front line worker) had her first shot last week, and was quite unwell for a few days afterwards.